Monday, April 14, 2014

Its unthinkable that we still find instances of discrimination against former Phillies.

A police officer from West Hartford had pulled up across the street, exited his vehicle, and begun walking in my direction. I noted the strangeness of his being in Hartford—an entirely separate town with its own police force—so I thought he needed help. He approached me with purpose, and then, without any introduction or explanation he asked, “So, you trying to make a few extra bucks, shoveling people’s driveways around here?”

All of my homeowner confidence suddenly seemed like an illusion.

It would have been all too easy to play the “Do you know who I am?” game. My late father was an immigrant from Trinidad who enrolled at Howard University at age 31 and went on to become a psychiatrist. My mother was an important education reformer from the South. I graduated from an Ivy League school with an engineering degree, only to get selected in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft. I went on to play professionally for nearly 15 years, retiring into business then going on to write a book and a column for The New York Times. Today, I work at ESPN in another American dream job that lets me file my taxes under the description “baseball analyst.”

But I didn’t mention any of this to the officer. I tried to take his question at face value, explaining that the Old Tudor house behind me was my own. The more I talked, the more senseless it seemed that I was even answering the question. But I knew I wouldn’t be smiling anymore that day.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I'm sure there are ####### cops in every country, but the main duty I saw police fulfilling in Britain* was as quasi tourist officials in city squares. During the day you'd see a few standing by themselves various places in downtown Nottingham, ostensibly I think to keep a watch on things, but mostly they'd have someone from out of town come up and ask where the nearest post office, medical clinic, or Burger King was, and (if the enquirer was elderly or a woman) they'd walk them there.

Of course if they've been called to investigate a possible crime I imagine their behaviour would be very different.

*OK, second most important duty. Their main job is keeping rival soccer fans apart during games.

As for my personal experiences with police officers, I've generally found them to be fairly cold and stand-offish. Though to be fair in pretty much every case I was doing something pretty stupid if not always technically illegal.

Part of American Exceptionalism is reinventing the wheel of most precious sensibilities. No one can tell any one of us anything. We all, everyone of us, knows better, and we all, everyone of us, insists on being the last decider on everything. Europeans (and others) have a sense of deference. They accede to the idea they are part of the whole. We only do that when we think we're owed something. We don't grok the idea of us every owing anything, or sacrificing, anything to keep that whole intact and preserved for the benefit of all. (I can sense the libertarian blood boiling at the idea.)

When you start the ugly personal language, you lose any right to complain, or to have any say about the tenor of a return response.

If by "complain", you mean "point out that your implied knowledge of police procedures derives solely from TV shows and screwball comedies", then yeah, I guess I've "complained" about the tenor of your response. But in reality I'm just enjoying Morty Being Morty for the umpteenth time.

Norman Mailer said it a long time ago. The same mentality that becomes a criminal becomes a cop. Or if Mailer isn't enough for you, you could ask Jolly Old to tell you about those Warner Brothers social/crime movies of the '30s he loves so much.

When I start quoting movie lines from Jimmy Cagney or Edward G. Robinson in order to make a point about police procedures, do let me know. But then unlike you, Cagney and Robinson never confused movies or TV shows with real life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In fulfillment of their duty, they have a superior standing. You are required to defer to them; e.g. complying with a lawful request.

Exactly what "request" did that policeman make to Glanville, other than requesting that he confirm his criminal status?

Exactly what "request" did that policeman make to Glanville, other than requesting that he confirm his criminal status?

I was not referring to this case. The cop seems to have been a bit of an ass to Glanville.

I was referring to David's statement that a cop is not your "superior". When legitimately executing his duty, the cop is your superior. You are required by law to give him deference within the reasonable bounds of doing his job.

When I start quoting movie lines from Jimmy Cagney or Edward G. Robinson in order to make a point about police procedures, do let me know. But then unlike you, Cagney and Robinson never confused movies or TV shows with real life.

What a mental life? Nothing refers to nothing. Culture and art have no bearing on our view of life. To cite Bob Dylan, it's wonder you can breathe. What is it, then, about I Was A Fugitive From A Chain Gang that calls to you?

Do cops still exist? The only tickets I've gotten in the last 9 years (knock wood) have been from those stupid traffic cameras, including a notice in my mailbox Monday busting me for having driven 36 in an apparently 25-posted construction zone 10 days earlier. (Jesus -- they use those for speed now, evidently. The other couple or three I've received have been for red lights.)

When I start quoting movie lines from Jimmy Cagney or Edward G. Robinson in order to make a point about police procedures, do let me know. But then unlike you, Cagney and Robinson never confused movies or TV shows with real life.

What a mental life? Nothing refers to nothing. Culture and art have no bearing on our view of life. To cite Bob Dylan, it's wonder you can breathe. What is it, then, about I Was A Fugitive From A Chain Gang that calls to you?

Morty, there are plenty of movies that relate to reality, but if I want to join a discussion on chain gangs, I'll try to refer to something other than an 82 year old movie. And when we're talking about a cop who comes up to a man and insultingly implies that he's guilty of a crime, I don't need Jack Webb or Clancy Wiggum to know how to respond.

And if I want to discuss how literary people can make complete idiots of themselves in a million ways, I'll certainly call in Norman Mailer as Exhibits A through Z. Great writing skills don't necessarily translate into great wisdom.

Pretty much every cop I've ever dealt with was a testosterone-fueled d-bag.

I've personally never had a problem with any cop (of course I'm white and middle class)
The only ones in my personal experience to be testosterone-fueled d-bags weres a cop one of my cousins dated for awhile, and a cop one of my law school classmates dated for awhile (Fortunately he wasn't a d-bag to me- in fact once in Williamsville- outside of Buffalo- he was one of the cops manning a DWI checkpoint and he waved me on without having me stop at all).

Only one of my High School friends ever seemed to have any issues with the police- and being "full blooded" Chickahominy his skin tone was several shades darker than mine (To be fair, and he's the first to admit, his reaction to ANY authority figure, parent, teacher, cop, manager, boss, is to start an argument)

I had a room-mate who wanted to be a cop. He certainly wasn't a d-bag, but wasn't terribly bright. He failed the interview for one city's police force because it was where his parent's lived. He got into town for the interview the night before and met up with his dad. After they each had several beers he thought his dad wasn't fit to drive so he took him home. The next day one of the questions was "have you ever driven under the influence" and he went with "last night" as his response.

And they track you through your cell phone/smart phone, too. And some towns in some countries have cameras at every corner in certain neighborhoods (and I bet they are poor, economically deprived, ethnically/racially imbued neighborhoods--o, woe are we).

That history or art or culture has nothing to tell us (even when it's Clancy Wiggum--sure, we'd all like to have friends....) is Philistinism of the highest order.

But I'll remember what you say here when we have a discussion about that 100-year old movie, Birth of a Nation.

Morty, Morty....

There's a difference between saying that a movie has nothing to "tell us", and not looking to a William Parker-certified 60-year old TV show for lessons on how police are expected to conduct themselves.

But rather ironically, having grown up with Dragnet during its first few years, I don't remember Sgt. Friday initiating his confrontations with middle class misdemeanor potential witnesses (which is what Glanville was) by telling them that he already knew that they were guilty. But perhaps you can correct me with a link to an episode or two where he does that.

Your reasoning seems to be that since police have been known to act poorly, that's all we have a right to expect of them. Sorry, I don't buy that, and neither should Glanville have had to.

There's a difference between saying that a movie has nothing to "tell us", and not looking to a William Parker-certified 60-year old TV show for lessons on how police are expected to conduct themselves.

No there isn't. Not when it comes to resurrecting a cultural context. To say that is just dumb. There are programs in colleges where people get degrees base on studying old industrial films, (Zinc, come back, zinc), films about '50s dating, TV commercials from the '50s, which all give us a window into how we lived and what we thought.

I mean, Jeez, don't you deal in memorabilia and rarities? To what purpose?

So Glanville’s stirring 2,500 word account of racism here, there, and everywhere can be boiled down to “I was asked a very presumptuous question by a cop investigating a complaint, and after I answered he left.”

In reading his column I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. Did the cop use a racial slur? Throw him up against his car? Beat him? Cuff him? Falsely arrest him? Draw his gun? Use any sort of force at all? Threaten him? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, and no.

That this non-incident-in-search-of-an-incident inspired a furious email from his wife to a senator and prompted the involvement of the chief of police, local attorneys, officers from the neighborhood’s civic association, internal affairs, town officials at a town hall meeting, and the mayor speaks volumes about the massive amount of progress we have made in this country on race relations.

And by neighbor he means someone in the next town, not even the same friggin town that Glanville lived in!

The "next town" was less than a block away, and Glanville's part of Hartford doesn't sound at all different than West Hartford.

Indeed, the people who live across the street from me are in "the next town." Are they not my neighbors?

***
So things I have learned ...

* While there may be racism in abstract, according to some folks it never really happens or is reported, because ... well liberals.
Perhaps it's sort of like affirmative action, which liberals insist is super-vital to have, despite the fact that it has never actually benefitted any individual minority.*

There's a difference between saying that a movie has nothing to "tell us", and not looking to a William Parker-certified 60-year old TV show for lessons on how police are expected to conduct themselves.

No there isn't. Not when it comes to resurrecting a cultural context. To say that is just dumb. There are programs in colleges where people get degrees base on studying old industrial films, (Zinc, come back, zinc), films about '50s dating, TV commercials from the '50s, which all give us a window into how we lived and what we thought.

All that's true, but again, we don't study the past in order to provide justification for its not-so-great features, which is what you've been doing throughout this thread. Hopefully we don't study the past merely in order to repeat it mindlessly.

And again, since you seem to use Dragnet for moral guidance, when did Sgt. Friday begin a conversation with a middle class homeowner by assuming that he was guilty of the incident he was sent out to investigate?

FWIW, I've had several relatives, friends, neighbors, and students who were cops - it's hard to generalize. Like servicemen & women (and many cops are veterans) they don't fit easily into preconceptions, and tend to be thoughtful and independent-minded people.

Since you love old movie quotes, the one that I'd apply to you at this point would be from The Dark Horse, where Warren William says of Guy Kibbee, "Every time he opens his mouth, he subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge." Which pretty much summarizes your contributions to this thread.

It is almost impossible to assign racism to any specific act, and in reality it is never just racism, racism is the extra ingredient. It always influences, but in 2014 does so subtly enough that it is usually deniable except in aggregate where it is obvious.

There's a difference between saying that a movie has nothing to "tell us", and not looking to a William Parker-certified 60-year old TV show for lessons on how police are expected to conduct themselves.

No there isn't. Not when it comes to resurrecting a cultural context. To say that is just dumb. There are programs in colleges where people get degrees base on studying old industrial films, (Zinc, come back, zinc), films about '50s dating, TV commercials from the '50s, which all give us a window into how we lived and what we thought.

Good point; also, Ally McBeal is a documentary on the legal profession in the 1990s.

There are programs in colleges where people get degrees base on studying old industrial films, (Zinc, come back, zinc), films about '50s dating, TV commercials from the '50s,

And the people with those degrees are probably trying to mow yards for a living (not that I use my history degree for anything, though at the moment it's actually coming in handy in my very-much-history-unrelated job ...).

I'm reminded of the Facebook friend who presumably will one day actually have to leave the academic cocoon & try to earn some sort of living with his comics-centric degrees, though I suppose there's a pretty good chance he'll wind up at some college or another & continue perpetuating such silliness into the next generation of useless pedants.

Then again, his dad's a doctor; he's probably got nothing to worry about, come what may. Those of us with nothing to fall back on are probably better-advised to be a tad more practical.

At least you can tell us which episode of The Simpsons you got that one from. It sounds too modern to be coming from the Marx Brothers or The Searchers, even though I've heard rumors that The Duke was a little AC/DC.

I think it's also worth noting that the cops on t.v. are usually investigating violent criminals, not a renegade snow shoveler. The cops I've dealt with in real life, in similarly benign situations like traffic stops, have usually been courteous and professional.

No there isn't. Not when it comes to resurrecting a cultural context. To say that is just dumb. There are programs in colleges where people get degrees base on studying old industrial films, (Zinc, come back, zinc), films about '50s dating, TV commercials from the '50s, which all give us a window into how we lived and what we thought.

Taking this seriously for a second - pretending that Morty isn't just trolling - studying these shows may well tell us "what we thought" about policing. (Where "we" is primarily people who have no interaction with cops other than traffic offenses.) It tells us nothing abut what policing actually is, let alone what it should be.

(I think Morty sometimes plays at being a lawyer; has he ever seen a show in which any aspect of the legal system was portrayed even a tiny bit accurately?)

Incidentally, British Pathé has recently uploaded 85,000 newsreel films to a YouTube channel. To borrow DMN's excellent point, they may not tell us much about history, but they will tell us a lot about what people thought about history as it was happening :)

Although on second thought, "history" isn't something that happens in a vacuum apart from culture. Would the various Warren Court decisions affecting the rights of accused people happened without books like The Ox-Bow Incident and To Kill a Mockingbird? Perhaps, but art can have a strong effect on the course of political and legal thought. At the very least it shows us which ways mainstream politics are developing.

Although on second thought, "history" isn't something that happens in a vacuum apart from culture. Would the various Warren Court decisions affecting the rights of accused people happened without books like The Ox-Bow Incident and To Kill a Mockingbird? Perhaps, but art can have a strong effect on the course of political and legal thought. At the very least it shows us which ways mainstream politics are developing.

I was about to say, as a historian I'd love to have access to a 17th century resource equivalent to hours and hours of newsreel footage. The best I can think of off-hand in my area are the newsbooks written on the Isle of Rhe campaign in 1627 for publication back home in England. They aren't the greatest source for how the battles actually went (suspiciously every report had the English doing really well, until out of nowhere they returned home in defeat), but in terms of what behaviour was expected of officers, what the English thought about the French, and what interested readers about warfare, it's a treasure trove.

Would the various Warren Court decisions affecting the rights of accused people happened without books like The Ox-Bow Incident and To Kill a Mockingbird?

Most of those decisions were decided by a coalition of hard core Bill of Rights justices (Black, Douglas), a Chief Justice (Warren) with regretful memories of his sad role in the Japanese internment, and some more recently appointed liberal justices like Brennan**, Fortas and Marshall, who had long been associated with various liberal causes. I doubt if any specific books had all that much influence on any of their thinking.

**Brennan less than the others, though he was a lifelong Democrat.

Perhaps, but art can have a strong effect on the course of political and legal thought. At the very least it shows us which ways mainstream politics are developing.

That's another story, though it's a bit of a "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" kind of thing. OTOH if there were any single work of literature that influenced those movements and decisions more than any other, it'd almost certainly have to have been The Bible.

Granted re: the specific thinking of any specific Justice, Andy. I was thinking more in general Zeitgeist terms.

No question that the cultural works or events can influence public thinking, which in turn can shift the laws. But unless you're talking about a cultural phenomenon that's truly epic, like Uncle Tom's Cabin, The Jungle, or Jackie Robinson, it's often hard to figure out where any specific work or event fits into the overall picture. I don't think we're disagreeing on the main point.

The comment was authentic and came from me. (Why is this even a question given that Jim has a login policy and the comment came from the same screen name I've been using?) I hadn't been to the site in a few months. No real reason. I just decided to do other things with my time. I doubt many people missed me, though, as many seem to instead find me irritable :-)

There’s no indication in Glanville’s account that the cop even asked him for ID, in order to cross check the address on his license with the address at the house. Nor is there any indication that the cop even knew that Glanville is something of a public figure; Glanville specifically says that he could have played the “Do You Know Who I Am” game but did not. So Glanville didn’t even tell the cop that he is a former MLB player and currently works for ESPN as an analyst. And yet this allegedly racist cop – isn’t that what the implication is here, or is it just that he was a cop implementing policies deemed racist, and if so what's the difference, really? – simply accepted his answer, no further questions asked.

The Glanvilles have smeared this cop in front of the community as a racist based on zero evidence, or at least as a cop who was implementing racist policies. (I presume the cop's name has been bandied about in these various e-mails and meetings.) That wasn’t a very nice thing to do. The cop perhaps could have worded his question differently, but if there was any d^^chebaginess in the question it was likely because that’s the way this cop, as all cops, often act generally – not because he’s a racist. If we're convicting the cop in the silly kangaroo "court of public opinion" we should at least convict him of the actual 'crime' he committed.

Glanville makes noise about “shoveling while black” (repeating in the column the title of the furious email his wife fired off to the senator) but perhaps the title of his piece should have been “Writing a column to smear a cop as a racist without evidence while black.” (*) (I love how Glanvillle sought legal advice as to what his legal options were in the face of the ghastly overly presumptuous question he was asked. The answer, of course, is “you have no legal recourse that is not frivolous.” And yet Glanville pretends that he has valid legal recourse by saying that he’s ruled out “immediate legal action.” Immediate, or ever. He could perhaps file some sort of a claim – file, not win – but it would be merely a publicity stunt.)

(*) This is what the race-baiting industry is. People like Sharpton who think that being black gives them standing to toss around frivolous charges of racism.

Here, in Glanville's own words, he tries to explain just what the hell it was that the officer had done. He comes up with "outside his jurisdiction... and "asked me a very presumptuous question." I mean... come on.

The first step was to articulate exactly what the West Hartford officer had done. He'd been outside his jurisdiction—the representative from internal affairs had confirmed this. That meant a police officer from another town had come to my house, approached me while I was shoveling my own driveway, and—without any introduction—asked me a very presumptuous question.

Here, in Glanville's own words, he tries to explain just what the hell it was that the officer had done. He comes up with "outside his jurisdiction... and "asked me a very presumptuous question." I mean... come on.

The first step was to articulate exactly what the West Hartford officer had done. He'd been outside his jurisdiction—the representative from internal affairs had confirmed this. That meant a police officer from another town had come to my house, approached me while I was shoveling my own driveway, and—without any introduction—asked me a very presumptuous question.

Yeah, I can just imagine you would've brushed off an identical question (which naturally you didn't quote) directed at you.

"So, Ray, you trying to make a few extra bucks, stealing patents from your clients?"

I have actually argued for years – if I cared enough I'd go back to the USENET archives and find it – that TV has had a terrible impact on policing and the public's view of it. On TV, we know the cops are the good guys; even if they engage bit of misconduct, we still know that they're the good guys, heroes of the show, and that their intentions are good.¹ Worse, as viewers we typically know who the bad guys are. So when the cops do cross the line – though never too much – we know that they're really "doing the right thing," because they're only doing it to catch the criminal.

Also – as someone above noted – they're only going after serious criminals. Mostly murderers, sometimes rapists, or major drug dealers, terrorists, kidnappers, mobsters. Not petty infractions. When they look,at each other, smirk, and then break into a house or apartment w/o a warrant because they pretend to hear cries or smell gas, we know they're only doing it to save the hostage or catch the murderer.

They're rarely wrong - very few shows have them mistakenly, let alone deliberately, harassing an innocent person. The petty stuff - throwing their weight around with the public just because they have a badge - never happens. Let alone (a la H.L.Gates) arresting people for contempt of cop. And they're always thorough; they never ignore inconvenient evidence or fail to follow up just because they think they have the right guy.

¹Other cops – never our heroes – may sometimes be lazy, or sloppy, or overly bureaucratic, but not bad. The only times cops are ever portrayed as overzealous and out to get some are, ironically, Internal Affairs.

Worse, as viewers we typically know who the bad guys are. So when the cops do cross the line – though never too much – we know that they're really "doing the right thing," because they're only doing it to catch the criminal.

Which is likely the excuse that the cop who "questioned" Glanville might give for presuming Glanville's guilt.

¹Other cops – never our heroes – may sometimes be lazy, or sloppy, or overly bureaucratic, but not bad. The only times cops are ever portrayed as overzealous and out to get some are, ironically, Internal Affairs.

There have actually been a few Law & Order episodes where the cops make bad mistakes, in some cases deliberately. These are the exception rather than the rule, though. The worst was an old episode I saw recently, where Jerry Orbuch and Benjamin Bratt basically forced a guy to confess to rape -- the only way they would segregate him from the general prison population ("You know what happens to sex offenders in prison, right?") was if he confessed. They denied him a lawyer, etc., and it turned out he wasn't the guy. Reminded me of the Central Park jogger case (Ken Burns' daughter wrote an excellent book on that case which the two of them also made into a documentary).

And if Joe returns to this thread, I'd like to know if that was indeed him mentioned in the Puig story.

--

Considering that Kehoskie is not a common name, that the guy who posts here has been involved with Cuban players and has appeared in other media on the topic, and is from upstate NY, I don't think that there is any question about it.

His wife's foolishness in saying Glanville was "detained" when he was only asked a question is the fault of modern liberals' turning every one of life's interactions into something political and racial. They've created the atmosphere in which blacks and other minorities are encouraged not to think rationally, but instead to emote and fling nonsense.

I feel bad for the Glanvilles -- Doug Glanville seems particularly likeable -- that modern liberals have created this kind of atmosphere wherein their obviously advanced faculties of reason go awry.

¹Other cops – never our heroes – may sometimes be lazy, or sloppy, or overly bureaucratic, but not bad. The only times cops are ever portrayed as overzealous and out to get some are, ironically, Internal Affairs.

And even when we get "complicated" cop shows, like The Sheild or 24, the guy shitting on the law in service of the law is always the good guy still.

And even when we get "complicated" cop shows, like The Sheild or 24, the guy shitting on the law in service of the law is always the good guy still.

I have a running theory that Jack Bauer has the superpower of getting reliable information through torture. Whenever anyone else tried to ape Jack's style in the show, it had bad results. Jack's "miracle exemption".

I think the new season will not be very good, seems like the moment has passed.

I have a running theory that Jack Bauer has the superpower of getting reliable information through torture. Whenever anyone else tried to ape Jack's style in the show, it had bad results. Jack's "miracle exemption".

In that for the neocon propaganda that the show was conceived to perform, Jack is the United States and gets the exemption, because he's always pure and good and effective. The rest are "the world" and they don't get to do the thing the US/Jack gets to do because, well, they're not Jack.

Yeah, I can just imagine you would've brushed off an identical question (which naturally you didn't quote) directed at you.

"So, Ray, you trying to make a few extra bucks, stealing patents from your clients?"

You think that's an "identical question"? The cop didn't say, "So, you planning to rob this house?"

“So, you trying to make a few extra bucks, shoveling people’s driveways around here?” was the question. The question assumed guilt on Glanville's part, though there was no evidence of it whatever.

But if you think that the seriousness of the crime trumps the similarity of the line of questioning, let's try this.

There have been reports in your law office of employees surfing the internet for pleasure on company time.** A person you've never met sees you surfing the internet, without any idea of whether it's related to your work or not, and asks "So, David, you stealing your employer's money by surfing the internet on company time?"

About the only difference I can see here is the nature of what the hypothetical "you" and Glanville were doing, along with the added racial factor which you can choose to ignore, but which it's scarcely easy for a black person in Glanville's situation not to contemplate.

And of course Glanville didn't even "talk back" to the cop. He played it straight, got no apology for the gratuitous presumption of guilt, and went back to shoveling his driveway. As for the cop, whatever embarrassment he might (and should) have felt, he kept strictly to himself. Mustn't lose face to a nobody.

Look, nobody's saying that what Glanville went through was that big a deal, but neither was his reaction. It's not as if the cop is going to get fired. But maybe next time he'll think twice before running his mouth, and the neighborhood will be a bit better off in terms of police-community relations than it was before.

Here's part of what Glanville wrote:

In one moment, I went from being an ordinary father and husband, carrying out a simple household chore, to a suspect offering a defense. The inquiry had forced me to check my tone, to avoid sounding smug even when I was stating the obvious: that I was shoveling the driveway because the house belonged to me.,,,

But as we spoke, I found myself thinking of the people who have to deal with far more extreme versions of racial profiling on a regular basis and don’t have the ability to convene meetings at Town Hall. As an article in the April issue of The Atlantic points out, these practices have “side effects.” They may help police find illegal drugs and guns, but they also disenfranchise untold numbers of people, making them feel like suspects … all of the time....

In a sense, the shoveling incident was a painful reminder of something I’ve always known: My biggest challenge as a father will be to help my kids navigate a world where being black is both a source of pride and a reason for caution. I want them to have respect for the police, but also a healthy fear—at least as long as racial profiling continues to be an element of law enforcement. But I also want them to go into the world with a firm sense of their own self-worth.

That's not describing the sort of thing that should be happening to citizens in any community, and I fail to see what's so bad about bringing such incidents into the light of day. Glanville is the farthest thing from a rabblerouser, but a cumulation of incidents like this can turn even the most mild-mannered person into someone you wouldn't want to be around.

Yeah, I can just imagine you would've brushed off an identical question (which naturally you didn't quote) directed at you.

"So, Ray, you trying to make a few extra bucks, stealing patents from your clients?"

Let me know when you have an example of an "identical question."

More to your point, though, yes, the question posed to Glanville had a whiff of cop-ish jackassery to it. But let's be honest -- even a more delicate and considered question would have raised the ire that has been raised here. Because the real problem is that Glanville was asked a question at all. ("Detained," as his wife put it.) Do you think that had the cop said "Hello sir, I'm investigating a complaint of door-to-door solicitation by someone who is shoveling driveways in violation of a local ordinance - may I ask if you live here?" that the Glanvilles wouldn't have been "outraged"? There was no real way to ask Glanville a question without upsetting the people who are upset by this, and there was no way for the cop, having season Glanville shoveling in a driveway, to properly investigate the matter without asking Glanville a question.

(His wife says there were several other people shoveling on the street at the same time. If true (she wasn't there, and how many is "several"), did they all fit the description of the rogue shoveler? Was Glanville's house the first house on the block with someone shoveling? Glanville says "Our block would have been the first stop for the wayward shoveler if he had entered Hartford.")

At a more abstract level, what seems to be going on with these false racism incidents generally is that because of the immense progress that has been made on race relations in this country, black people Glanville's age by and large haven't seen anything approaching the deep and vile racism that black people of older generations had to deal with. So when something trivial arises -- even something like this were there is not a scintilla of evidence that racism or even of racial profiling was involved -- a black person Glanville's age is like "SEE!!! OH MY GOD IT'S HAPPENED TO ME!!! SHOVELING WHILE BLACK!!!" This is the frenzy with which Sharpton and Jackson, themselves out to make money, have whipped a segment of the community into.

In that for the neocon propaganda that the show was conceived to perform, Jack is the United States and gets the exemption, because he's always pure and good and effective. The rest are "the world" and they don't get to do the thing the US/Jack gets to do because, well, they're not Jack.

IMO, you've got to read it more carefully. In the instances where not-Jack CTU operatives tortured people, the outcomes were less than desirable. It's been a while since I watched it, but IIRC I don't think you can find one single instance, in 8 seasons, where another character successfully used torture for info extraction.

It's an interesting text to read, because there was a battle going on behind the scenes between the neocon hero Surnow and the ultra-liberal Sutherland that played out in some weird ways, especially as Sutherland got more say in the show's direction. Remember when it first came out, a (former) film star going to TV was still seen as a big step down-- Sutherland's film career had pretty much stalled out, and he revived his rep through what was always seen as a lesser medium. Since then, and partly because of his success, it's become an acceptable thing to do, to the extent that it has really changed TV casting.

This is pretty much the long and the short of it, with the added indelicateness of the phrasing of the question. I was stunned in reading Glanville's wife's email when she wrote "The officer left when Doug told him that it was his house." I stared at the words of her email and was like, then where's the beef? Is this a joke? What in the world are they raising the roof at city hall about?

Her email:

Doug just got detained by West Hartford Police in front of our house while shoveling our driveway, questioning him about asking to be paid for shoveling. [Cue William Shatner Rescue 911 voice: "And then -- suddenly"] The officer left when Doug told him that it was his house. There were several other people on our street out in front of their houses shoveling snow at the same time. None of them were stopped for questioning. Just wanted to vent to someone whom we know cares and would be equally outraged.

Look, nobody's saying that what Glanville went through was that big a deal, but neither was his reaction.

I disagree. "His reaction" was to concur with a furious email from his wife to a senator, it was to involve the chief of police, local attorneys, officers from the neighborhood’s civic association, internal affairs, town officials at a town hall meeting, and the mayor, as well as to seek legal advice about filing a complaint and to pen a 2,500 word column. I'm not sure how you measure the size of deals, but that, to me, is certainly a "big deal."

Yeah, I can just imagine you would've brushed off an identical question (which naturally you didn't quote) directed at you.

"So, Ray, you trying to make a few extra bucks, stealing patents from your clients?"

Let me know when you have an example of an "identical question."

So Ray, are you pocketing your boss's money while you're surfing on the internet?

More to your point, though, yes, the question posed to Glanville had a whiff of cop-ish jackassery to it. But let's be honest -- even a more delicate and considered question would have raised the ire that has been raised here. Because the real problem is that Glanville was asked a question at all.

Yeah, Glanville would have reacted identically to, "Sir, there've been reports of solicitors going around asking for shoveling work. Has anyone approached you about that?"

As opposed to, “So, you trying to make a few extra bucks, shoveling people’s driveways around here?”

Yeah, all questions are alike. And Glanville has such a history of being a jackass.

At a more abstract level, what seems to be going on with these false racism incidents generally is that because of the immense progress that has been made on race relations in this country, black people Glanville's age by and large haven't seen anything approaching the deep and vile racism that black people of older generations had to deal with. So when something trivial arises -- even something like this were there is not a scintilla of evidence that racism or even of racial profiling was involved -- a black person Glanville's age is like "SEE!!! OH MY GOD IT'S HAPPENED TO ME!!! SHOVELING WHILE BLACK!!!" This is the frenzy with which Sharpton and Jackson, themselves out to make money, have whipped a segment of the community into.

If you even bothered to read the entire article, it apparently passed right over your head. It wouldn't be the first time.

Yeah, that was awesome. Looking for an angry black dude in a charcoal Nissan Titan, open fire on two Hispanic women in a blue Toyota Tacoma. To be fair, the also mistakenly shot at a dude in a black pickup truck. Their incompetence in vehicle identification rivaled only by their sh!tty marksmanship. 100 bullets into that Tacoma and those ladies walked away./quote]

Apparently, one of my FIL's good friends came in contact with Dorner in an LA County Sheriff jurisdiction and wrote some "paper" on the fellow. It's awesome to hear my FIL talk crap about LAPD, cause his dad was LAPD. FWIW, my GFIL (grand father in law) was the first hispanic captain and detective in the LAPD. That said, my FIL (a retired LA country sheriff's deputy) has little patience with the LAPD.

//my wife's grandpa was thanked on episodes of Dragnet. She's from a law and order right wing kind of family. Somehow, she married me!

Look, nobody's saying that what Glanville went through was that big a deal, but neither was his reaction.

I disagree. "His reaction" was to concur with a furious email from his wife to a senator, it was to involve the chief of police, local attorneys, officers from the neighborhood’s civic association, internal affairs, town officials at a town hall meeting, and the mayor, as well as to seek legal advice about filing a complaint and to pen a 2,500 word column. I'm not sure how you measure the size of deals, but that, to me, is certainly a "big deal."

Problem seen. Problem publicized. Problem recognized by the wider community as a problem. Problem less likely to recur.

What's the alternative, just shutting up and letting the cop repeat his insulting line of questioning with impunity?

And if Joe returns to this thread, I'd like to know if that was indeed him mentioned in the Puig story.

Yes, that's me.

***

I feel bad for the Glanvilles -- Doug Glanville seems particularly likeable -- that modern liberals have created this kind of atmosphere wherein their obviously advanced faculties of reason go awry.

A cop asked a citizen a question and left. Oh, the humanity!!!

Agreed. As I said in #1, I really like Glanville. But other than as a piece of attention-getting, which has never seemed like Glanville's style, I don't know what he was trying to accomplish here. It seems like his wife is the one hellbent on making a federal case out of this.

***

And even when we get "complicated" cop shows, like The Sheild or 24, the guy shitting on the law in service of the law is always the good guy still.

There was no real way to ask Glanville a question without upsetting the people who are upset by this, and there was no way for the cop, having season Glanville shoveling in a driveway, to properly investigate the matter without asking Glanville a question.

It's actually worse. If you're a well-off black guy and you live in a neighborhood with few or no other black guys, anytime a cop asks you a question of any kind you will have grounds, under modern liberal logic, to say you were "racially profiled."

So the lone black guy in the neighborhood must be immune from police interaction, lest the police be accused of "racial profiling."

Look, nobody's saying that what Glanville went through was that big a deal, but neither was his reaction.

Yes it was. He spent time writing an essay about it and speaking with more than one lawyer about his (utterly nonexistent) legal options and basically indicated that it was a life-altering event. As did his wife, who for good measure, threw in a false accusation that Doug Glanville had been detained.

But as previously noted, it's not really their fault, as they didn't create the "intellectual" template of "racial profiling" by which modern liberals publicly demand these kind of things be analyzed by. When in fact it was nothing more than a cop asking a citizen a question, getting an answer, and moving on.

Well, you're not a computer algorithm programmed to deny race is ever a factor in anything. So that's part of your problem.

Well, to be fair to Ray and Da Bear Man, they recognize race as a factor all the time, though their vision of "racism" seems to be limited to 19th century slavery, 21st century "reverse racism", and (in DBM's case) the official moniker for what Washington fans refer to as the Washington Deadskins.

So the lone black guy in the neighborhood must be immune from police interaction, lest the police be accused of "racial profiling."

Cops shouldn't be "wise-ass" to anyone, of any race. So if you want to concede that, I'll concede that we can drop the race issue. But the fact that he singled out the black guy is a squeamish thing. How would you feel if a cop approached you and said "we have a report of an ass hole soliciting for shoveling jobs"?

I kid!!

Has this been discussed in the thread: what's the problem with anyone offering to shovel snow for pay? I wish they'd come to my house and ask. And, to mow my lawn.